The New York Times on "online learning"
by DPatrick, Apr 6, 2011, 4:54 PM
There is a significant article on the front page of today's New York Times about online education. It is (in my view) mostly critical, with lots of claims along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) "schools are just using online classes because they're cheaper" and "online classes are bad because there's no interaction between teacher and student".
On the former point, I say: live in the real world. It is a fact that education budgets are being cut, and "cheaper" is not synonymous with "worse". Online courses can provide an economy of scale that face-to-face cannot. (There's a reason why Amazon is thriving and Borders is bankrupt, or why Netflix is thriving and Blockbuster is bankrupt.)
On the latter point, I agree that the type of online class in which a student just watches a video lesson, does offline homework on his or her own, and has very minimal interaction (if any at all) with a teacher or fellow students, is a poor substitute for a live classroom. The Times article (and the people quoted in it, including especially the "debate" that the article is linked to) seems to imply that all online course are like this. However, AoPS classes are not like that! AoPS classes are live, with an actual teacher, with lots of interactivity and essentially unlimited ability for students to ask questions and get a live response. AoPS also provides a community for students in a class to talk to each other (via a class message board and nearly 24/7 access to the class's private chatroom). We feel that AoPS is quite often a better environment for high-performing students than a traditional classroom, for a variety of reasons.
Similarly, an adaptive system like our Alcumus, that is personally tailored to each student and including many tools for both student and teacher tracking of progress, is a far cry from the generic "online learning" system described in the Times article.
So please don't tar all "online classes" with the same brush. People asserting that "face to face is always better" are being naive to both the possibilities of online learning and to the financial realities of education today.
On the former point, I say: live in the real world. It is a fact that education budgets are being cut, and "cheaper" is not synonymous with "worse". Online courses can provide an economy of scale that face-to-face cannot. (There's a reason why Amazon is thriving and Borders is bankrupt, or why Netflix is thriving and Blockbuster is bankrupt.)
On the latter point, I agree that the type of online class in which a student just watches a video lesson, does offline homework on his or her own, and has very minimal interaction (if any at all) with a teacher or fellow students, is a poor substitute for a live classroom. The Times article (and the people quoted in it, including especially the "debate" that the article is linked to) seems to imply that all online course are like this. However, AoPS classes are not like that! AoPS classes are live, with an actual teacher, with lots of interactivity and essentially unlimited ability for students to ask questions and get a live response. AoPS also provides a community for students in a class to talk to each other (via a class message board and nearly 24/7 access to the class's private chatroom). We feel that AoPS is quite often a better environment for high-performing students than a traditional classroom, for a variety of reasons.
Similarly, an adaptive system like our Alcumus, that is personally tailored to each student and including many tools for both student and teacher tracking of progress, is a far cry from the generic "online learning" system described in the Times article.
So please don't tar all "online classes" with the same brush. People asserting that "face to face is always better" are being naive to both the possibilities of online learning and to the financial realities of education today.
September 2012
May 2012